Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Psychological Preparedness for Natural Disasters – Improving Disaster
Management Theory and Practice
Table of contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................. 2
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 3
Natural Disasters in Australia ........................................................................................... 4
Natural Disaster Impact on Mental Health ....................................................................... 5
The Construct Psychological Preparedness .................................................................... 7
Key Focus of this Research ............................................................................................. 7
Aims .................................................................................................................................. 8
Study 1 .............................................................................................................................. 9
Method .......................................................................................................................... 9
Thematic Analysis Data Collection Procedure ......................................................... 9
Thematic Analysis Data Analysis Procedure .......................................................... 10
Results of the Thematic Analysis ............................................................................... 11
Scale Item Testing ...................................................................................................... 12
Procedure ................................................................................................................ 12
Participants .............................................................................................................. 12
Results ........................................................................................................................ 12
Study 2 ............................................................................................................................ 13
Method ........................................................................................................................ 13
Procedure ................................................................................................................ 13
Participants .............................................................................................................. 13
Exploratory Factor Analysis .................................................................................... 14
Confirmatory Factor Analyses ................................................................................. 14
Results ........................................................................................................................ 15
Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 19
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 19
References ..................................................................................................................... 21
2
Abstract
Natural disasters considerably impact on human lives across the world.
As a result of exposure to natural disasters, some individuals develop
psychological problems, including severe anxiety, depression, or Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder. While many disaster preparedness programs are in
place, these mostly involve advice on how to prepare physically, often
neglecting the psychological aspects of disaster preparedness. Successfully
preparing for natural disasters, however, includes both physical and
psychological preparedness. The current research highlights the importance of
the psychological aspects of disaster preparedness and explores the role the
construct psychological preparedness can play in disaster management theory
and practice. The purpose of this research was to define psychological
preparedness as a construct and to develop and validate a measure of
psychological preparedness, the Psychological Preparedness for Disaster
Threat Scale (PPDTS). This newly developed measure was then administered
to a total of 1,143 student and staff members of universities in Queensland,
Australia. A series of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, as well as
scale reliability were performed. The psychometric properties of the PPDTS
demonstrated that the scale is a valid and reliable measure of psychological
preparedness. The definition of psychological preparedness and the new
PPDTS scale can aid in shaping and evaluating the effectiveness of current
disaster preparedness programs and through this may support the fostering of
long-term resilience, enabling particularly residents in identified disaster zones
to better cope in the aftermath of disasters.
3
Introduction
Natural disasters are a world-wide concern, having shaped and modified
human behavior, changing the way people live with, and respond to, the
environment (Woolf, Schneider, & Hazelwood, 2013). The 2004 Indian Ocean
Tsunami caused numerous casualties in Thailand, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and
India, in 2005, Category 5 Hurricane Katrina devastated large parts of
Louisiana, USA; likewise in 2008, a powerful earthquake shook Sichuan, China.
In 2011 an earthquake and tsunami destroyed large parts of north-eastern
Japan, and the same year several earthquakes impacted Christchurch, New
Zealand. Recent notable natural disasters in Australia include the 2009 Black
Saturday bushfires, and 2013 New South Wales bushfires, and widespread
floods in Queensland from 2011 to early 2013 (Woolf et al., 2013). While natural
disasters occur around the world, North America has been most affected by
extreme weather events in the past decade and has seen the largest increase
in extreme weather event property loss worldwide (MunichRe, 2012). Hurricane
Katrina constituted the costliest extreme weather event ever recorded in North
America, in terms of loss of property, as well as loss of lives (MunichRe, 2012).
As anthropogenic climate change progresses, research indicates that
associated natural disaster occurrences, such as storms and floods, will
increase in their frequency or intensity (IPCC, 2012; Middlemann, 2007; Woolf
et al., 2013). Further notable changes to the climate are inevitable if
greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current level (IPCC, 2012; Palutikof
et al., 2013) and these changes can impact flora and fauna, as well as living
conditions for humans (Altizer, Ostfeld, Johnson, Kutz, & Harvell, 2013; Ebi,
2010).
4
Natural Disasters in Australia
Australia’s unique climate and vegetation make it highly prone to a
multitude of natural disasters (Australian Government, 2008). Annually, over
500,000 Australians are affected by natural disasters, with historical records in
Australia indicating that disasters have occurred at least since the 1850s
(Macdougall, Ryzman, & Zwar, 2002). Bushfires, tropical cyclones and severe
storms, and often with accompanying floods, have caused the most severe
destruction and the greatest loss of life in the last century (Brown, 2002). Such
natural disasters have helped shape Australia’s history, culture, way of life and
the peoples’ understanding of nature (Brown, 2002).
Tropical cyclones occur seasonally and pose a regularly occurring threat
to Australians living in cyclone–prone regions, such as the north and north-east
of Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008). Cyclones develop over the
warm oceans of northern Australia and can produce very destructive winds,
rains, and storm tides, with the annual cyclone season mainly occurring
between November and April (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008). Since
1839, tropical cyclones have caused over 2,100 deaths in Australia and
affected more than 250,000 people, and the average annual cost of tropical
cyclones in Australia is an estimated AU$266 million (Blong, 2005). The
Australian population is especially vulnerable to severe storms, cyclones and
floods with 81% of people living within 50 km of the coast line, near rivers or
creeks, which are either hit directly when a cyclone makes landfall, or are
affected by accompanying storm surges (Blong, 2005). During the annual
cyclone season, weather warnings and cyclone bulletins are issued frequently,
with many cyclone warning situations not culminating in actual cyclone impacts
5
(ABS, 2008). Although these early warning systems are in place for cyclones,
storms, and floods, often preventing loss of life, some people exposed to
natural disaster impacts develop symptoms of post-traumatic stress and other
psychological problems as a result (Ebi, 2010). This problem highlights the
necessity for a focus on better psychological preparedness for disaster
management practices (Bryant, 2009; Reser & Morrissey, 2005).
Natural Disaster Impact on Mental Health
Exposure to disasters can lead to a variety of long-term health effects
and risks. Apart from physical effects, exposure to natural disasters can also
cause psychological symptoms, such as amnesia, anxiety (including
Generalized Anxiety Disorder), phobias, substance abuse, insomnia, post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), hyper arousal, acute stress disorder (ASD),
depression and at times suicide, and other mental illnesses (Fan et al., 2011;
Hussain, Weisaeth, & Heir, 2011; Keskinen-Rosenqvist, Michélsen, Schulman,
& Wahlström, 2011; Neria, Nandi, & Galea, 2008; Norris, 2001). Symptoms
might not be detected immediately after the disaster strikes and delayed
symptom development might occur after the first few weeks following disaster
exposure (Wahlström, 2010). This makes mental health, social support and
crisis interventions after a disaster extremely difficult (Wahlström, 2010). At
times, even relatively mild exposure to natural disasters can lead to the
development of psychological distress (Gifford, 2007; Reser, 2007).
Furthermore, not only primary victims, those directly exposed to the disaster,
may suffer from psychological symptoms, but others, such as grieving relatives
and friends of the primary victims may be affected by association (secondary
6
victims). Emergency personnel, including rescue workers, fire, police,
psychologists, as well as mental health and social workers may also be affected
by the disaster indirectly. These indirect impacts can include vicarious
traumatization and compassion fatigue or burnout (Paton, Violanti, Dunning, &
Smith, 2004; Prati, Pietrantoni, & Cicognani, 2011).
Even community members not immediately involved in the disaster may
also experience different levels of distress (Schmuckler, 2004). Gifford (2007)
cited a 17% increase in general psychopathology after the occurrence of a
disaster. In addition, recent reports suggest that the toll on individuals following
extreme disasters, such as Hurricane Katarina, may continue to rise for many
years following the disaster (Dass-Brailsford, 2008, 2009; Kessler et al., 2008).
Due to the development of psychological symptoms following disasters, a
large portion of disaster research has focused on the prevention of the
development of these symptoms. Little research in the disaster area has
focused on psychologically preparing individuals, instead concentrating on how
to adequately prepare individuals or groups physically for natural disaster
impacts (McCabe et al., 2012; McCabe et al., 2013). However, a study by
Schneider (1990) illustrated how physical preparedness might not be sufficient
in order to successfully cope with a disaster experience. Even though residents
had been generally prepared for the Loma Prieta earthquake in San Francisco
in 1989, many residents still had difficulty in coping with the ramifications of this
disaster. Therefore enhanced psychological preparedness is needed to help
decrease psychological distress.
7
The Construct Psychological Preparedness
While the term psychological preparedness has been referred to in the
disaster literature for several years (Morrissey & Reser, 2003; Reser 1996) the
current study constitutes the first attempt to operationalize this term and to
develop a valid and reliable scale to measure this construct. According to Reser
(Reser & Morrissey, 2009), psychological preparedness involves several
intertwined within-individual processes and capacities, such as awareness,
knowledge, anticipation, concern, thinking, feeling, experienced stress,
motivation, intentions and decision making, and management of, or coping with
one’s thoughts, feelings, and actions. To date there has been only one
published study addressing psychological preparedness to natural disaster.
Reser and Morrissey conducted a community survey in Cairns, Northern
Queensland in 1996. The study investigated participants’ knowledge of
cyclones, preparedness measures and emotional responses to the approaching
cyclone season. The results showed that participants who had received a
cyclone information guide were better able to predict, identify and manage their
feelings during this cyclone season (Morrissey & Reser, 2003). While showing
promising results, this study lacked a clear and operationalized definition of the
construct, as well as a valid and reliable measuring instrument.
Key Focus of this Research
The focus of this research is on mitigating the psychological impact of
natural disasters occurring in Australia, which currently constitutes a significant
gap in current disaster management practices in the preparedness stage. The
current research therefore addresses is the absence of psychological
8
preparedness in disaster preparedness theory and practice. In order to achieve
effective overall disaster preparedness, a psychological focus in the disaster
preparedness field needs to be established. Therefore psychological
preparedness needs to be defined, measured and implemented as a
fundamental component in disaster preparedness measures and training.
Individuals need to be better prepared, psychologically, to successfully manage
a disaster warning situation or disaster impact. So far, disaster mitigation has
been unsuccessful in preparing individuals psychologically for the emotional
stress that a natural disaster threat or impact can cause. The incorporation of
psychological preparedness into disaster management and more specifically
disaster preparedness procedures will strengthen disaster management
practices overall.
Aims
This research aimed to make a significant contribution to the effectiveness of
natural disaster preparedness. It aspired to contribute to fundamental
knowledge in regard to the psychological component of disaster preparedness.
The aims of this research were:
1. To provide a systematic and comprehensive review of psychological
preparedness, arriving at an operationalized definition.
2. To develop a valid, sensitive and reliable scale to measure this construct
and psychological state.
Prior to the commencement of the research, ethical approval was
obtained from Griffith University’s Human Research Ethics Committee, ethics
9
protocol number: PSY/27/10/HREC. All data were analyzed using the Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22.0 and AMOS version 22.0.0.
Unless otherwise stated, all significance tests were analyzed using an alpha
level of .05.
Study 1
Method
This study employed a mixed-methods approach in order to explore the
construct of psychological preparedness by identifying themes that emerged in
relation to literature related to psychological preparedness, using thematic
analysis (Owen, 1984). Based on these themes, an operationalized definition of
the construct was developed and a new instrument to measure psychological
preparedness was constructed. The rationale for using both qualitative and
quantitative data is that an encompassing instrument of psychological
preparedness could only be constructed after attaining an in-depth understanding
of the concept of psychological preparedness, so thus to arrive at its definition,
and to develop a scale. This complementary mixed methods approach is often
used when a researcher cannot rely on either a qualitative or a quantitative
research method to successfully address the research aims (Bryman, 2004).
Thematic Analysis Data Collection Procedure
Data collection and familiarization were carried out through literature
searches, conducted over a period of 8 months, as Howitt and Cramer (2011)
emphasize its importance in thematic analysis data collection. The discipline of
psychology guided the literature search and existing literature on psychological
10
preparedness formed the basis of the literature search. The search for literature
focused on document searches, including peer-reviewed academic literature,
such as journal articles, research reports and books. The document searches
were carried out using the Griffith University library, and internet searches,
using data bases PsycInfo, ProQuest, Science Direct, and Google scholar. In
total, 620 documents were collected.
Thematic Analysis Data Analysis Procedure
The literature differs in the exact procedure of thematic analysis (Braun &
Clarke, 2006; Elliott & Timulak, 2005; Gibson & Brown, 2009; Howitt & Cramer,
2011) and it is the researcher’s choice on how to conduct it. The documents
from the literature search were analyzed using Owen’s (1984) approach to the
identification of themes in literature, and following three criteria: recurrence
(implicit recurrence), repetition (repetition of exact wording), and forcefulness
(focus on passages through formatting in written reports). Braun and Clarke
(2006) reasoned that concrete rules of best practice do not exist and that a
theme merely has to capture something important in the data in relation to the
research question. Recurrence and repetition were detected in the documents
during the current data analysis, as Owen (1984) suggested. As forcefulness of
certain themes in academic texts is usually conveyed through the emphasis or
elaboration of a point (Howitt & Cramer, 2011), the criterion of forcefulness was
assessed in this manner in the present analysis.
11
Results of the Thematic Analysis
The themes that have emerged from the thematic analysis have informed
the operationalized definition of psychological preparedness, as well as the item
construction for the psychological preparedness scale.
In the context of a serious threatening event or disaster warning
situation, psychological preparedness is a heightened state of awareness,
anticipation, and readiness for: (1) the uncertainty and emotional arousal in
expectation of the occurrence of the threat, (2) one’s own psychological
response to the unfolding situation, and (3) the ability to manage the demands
of the situation. Three sub-domains are thought to contribute to psychological
preparedness:
1 Awareness and anticipation of one’s own probable psychological
responses to the uncertainty and stress of a disaster warning situation or
event, including the ability to recognise particular stress-related thoughts
and feelings. This also includes an individual’s perception, appraisal, and
understanding of the risk communication and threatening event.
2 Capacity, confidence, and competence to manage one’s psychological
response to the unfolding warning situation or event, and to manage
one’s social environment.
3 Perceived knowledge and confidence and competence to manage one’s
external physical situation and circumstances in the context of the
warning situation.
12
Scale Item Testing
Procedure
Aiken and Groth-Marnat (2006) emphasized the importance of assessing
reliability for any new instrument, to see whether it measures what it intends to
measure. To test both face and content validity, 12 experts were provided with
the initial 51-item version of the PPDTS and were asked to identify which sub-
domain they believed the item belonged to and to rate each item’s fit with the
particular sub-domain using a 4-point Likert-type scale. Face validity was also
assessed by 10 university students, who rated the items for clarity. The PPDTS
was revised in light of recommendations by experts and university students and
the entire survey was pilot tested on five different university students.
Participants
Content and face validity were assessed using ratings by 12 experts, as
is common in test construction and part of the validation process (Gregory,
2011; Urbina, 2004). Experts included practicing psychologists, university
academics, and six doctoral-level students. Face validity was subsequently also
assessed by recruiting 10 university students. Five different university students
then pilot tested the entire survey.
Results
Items were considered to match the sub-domain sufficiently well if at
least eight of the 12 raters (at least 66%) agreed upon the sub-domain for a
particular item. Only items that both matched the sub-domain that they were
13
intended for and were rated three or above for fit, as well as a rating of 3 and
above for clarity were included in the final version of the scale. The measure
was revised in light of the feedback by experts and students, reducing the final
PPDTS scale to 40 items.
Study 2
Method
Procedure
The 40-item PPDTS scale and overall survey was administered to
students and staff members of universities in Queensland, using both paper
and online versions, using online service SurveyMonkey.
Participants
Participants were invited to take part in the study via email, and overall
1,494 students and university staff members Universities in Queensland,
Australia, responded to the survey. While 1,494 participants commenced the
online survey, due to each item requiring a response in order to proceed, 351
participants logged off prior to completing the survey. Therefore, a total of 1,143
participants completed the survey online. Participants were asked to provide
information on gender, age, highest level of education, whether English was
their first language or not, and their type of accommodation (rented or owned).
Furthermore, participants were asked to provide their suburb, postcode, and the
number of years they have been residing in Queensland or Northern New South
Wales. Since participants were unable to omit items, no missing data was found
in the online survey. Table 2 lists the participant characteristics.
14
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Prior to the analyses, the data set was examined for accuracy of data
entry and assumptions for all planned analyses were assessed (i.e. normal
distribution, complete data, collinearity), as suggested by psychometric
assessment experts (Field, 2009; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Four items that
were extremely skewed and four other items that showed extremely low inter-
item correlations were excluded from factor analysis. Bartlett’s test of Sphericity
was significant, χ²(496) = 10436.579, p < .000, allowing for the sample to be
investigated through factor analysis (Field, 2009; Hair et al., 2006), and
sampling adequacy was excellent, with a Kaiser–Myer–Olkin measure value of
KMO = .95 (Field, 2009). The data set was then randomly split to provide two
separate data sets for the exploratory (EFA) and first confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA 1), and the second confirmatory factor analysis (CFA 2), as is
common in scale development practices (Byrne, 2001). The method chosen for
the exploratory factor analysis was Principal Axis Factoring (PAF). This method
was specifically chosen because it was not assumed that all variances among
the variables were common, as is most often the case with real-life data (Byrne,
2001; Field, 2009). Rather, it was believed that some variance was common
(Field, 2009). An oblique rotation (direct oblimin) was chosen, as the underlying
factors were believed to related (Field, 2009).
Confirmatory Factor Analyses
A series of confirmatory factor analyses were performed in order to
confirm and support the hypothesized structure of the scale (Byrne, 2001; Hair
et al., 2006). The samples for the CFA procedures consisted of n = 579
15
participants (CFA1), and n = 580 participants (CFA2) respectively. The
measurement model fit was tested and then confirmed on a separate sample
(sample CFA 2), in order to demonstrate that the model solution applied in two
separate samples. Model fit was assessed using a variety of fit indices. Besides
the recommended key fit indices of χ², an incremental fit index and an absolute
fit index (Hair et al., 2006), it was decided to include other fit indices considered
to be important, such as the RMR, SRMR, TLI, PCFI, Lo90, Hi90, and the AIC.
Hair et al. (2006) pointed out that for these fit indices, there are no absolute
values for goodness of fit, there are only guidelines. Thus, the guidelines were
followed, and the fit of the sum of the fit indices, rather than solely individual
ones, were considered when deciding on the best fitting model.
Results
The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) revealed a final factor structure
consisting of 26 items, which loaded onto four factors. Factor 1, with 13 items;
Factor 2, with 7 items; Factor 3 with three items; and Factor 4 with three items.
All four factors together accounted for 57.39% of the total variance. All factors
correlated at a moderate level indicating that the factors are associated with
each other and are part of the same construct. The final factor structure and
factor loadings are displayed in Table 2.
When conducting confirmatory factor analyses, several different models
are often tested when a new scale is developed, in order to ensure that the
model presents good conceptual representation. First, the model fit of a one
factor solution was tested in order to verify that the scale is not unidimensional,
but instead a multi-dimensional measure (Byrne, 2001). Subsequently, three
16
factor structure suggested by the three sub-domains of the definition of
psychological preparedness was tested. Finally, the EFA solution was tested for
model fit. The EFA solution with 4 factors and 26 items showed good model fit.
Subsequently, a second CFA was performed with the best fitting EFA model, in
order to confirm and support the theorized structure of the scale (Hair et al.,
2006). Again, all fit indices reached the recommended values indicative of good
fit. The CFA model fit results are listed in Table 3.
The PPDTS scale showed excellent scale reliability, with a Cronbach’s
alpha value of .93. The Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted section showed that
deleting one item would increase the reliability, however merely by .01. While
this improves the reliability, the improvement is minimal, and the case was
made to retain this item.
Table 1 Participant characteristics (N = 1159)
Characteristics n (%)
Demographic characteristics
Males Females English as the first language
289 (24.9%) 870 (75.1%) 1042 (89.9%)
Highest level of education
Primary School Secondary School
2 (0.2%) 414 (35.7%)
TAFE or other college 176 (15.2%)
University 567 (48.9%)
Accommodation type
Owned 622 (53.7%)
Rented 537 (46.5%)
17
Table 2
EFA final solution pattern matrix
No. Item description Factor 1 2 3 4 5
34 I am familiar with the severe storm or cyclone preparedness materials available to me. .85 38 I am familiar with the disaster warning system messages used for extreme weather events. .84 35 I know which household preparedness measures are needed to stay safe in a very severe
storm or cyclone situation. .77
31 I would be able to locate the severe storm or cyclone preparedness materials in a cyclone warning situation easily.
.76
39 I know what the difference is between a cyclone warning and a cyclone watch situation. .75 32 I know how to adequately prepare my home for the forthcoming storm or cyclone season. .72 33 I know where I can quickly find the emergency contact information in a severe weather
situation. .69
37 I know what to look out for in my home and work place if an emergency weather situation should develop.
.68
29 I regularly monitor news bulletins and Met Bureau advice during storm season. .67 36 I am familiar with the weather signs of an approaching storm or cyclone. .62 40 I am knowledgeable about the impact that very severe storms or cyclones can have on my
home. .60
30 I am confident that I know what to do and what actions to take in a severe weather situation. .57 3 I can assess the likelihood of a cyclone crossing the coast. .50 2 I have a good sense of the risks posed by a very severe storm or an impending cyclone. .41 18 I think I am able to manage my feelings pretty well in difficult and challenging situations. .83 20 I seem to be able to stay cool and calm in most difficult situations. .76 16 I feel reasonably confident in my own ability to deal with stressful situations that I might find
myself in. .76
17 In a severe storm or cyclone situation I would be able to cope with my anxiety and fear. .67 19 When necessary, I can talk myself through challenging situations. .66
18
27 If I found myself in a severe storm or cyclone situation I would know how to manage my own response to the situation.
.50
25 I know which strategies I could use to calm myself in a severe storm or cyclone situation. .49 26 I know which strategies I could use to calm others in a severe storm or cyclone warning
situation. .83
22 If others are in distress, I would know how to calm them down. .79 21 I would be able to tell easily if those/others around me are in distress. .53 12 During severe storms or cyclones I would notice if I am feeling anxious or stressed. .55 13 I usually prepare mentally for situations that might be difficult or stressful. .52 9 I am able to identify my feelings pretty well in challenging situations. .51
Table 3
CFA model fit
Model Factors Items χ² Df χ²/df RMR SRMR TLI CFI PCFI RMSEA Lo90 Hi90 AIC
1 Factor 1 32 3434.85 464 7.40 .05 .094 .67 .71 .66 .105 .10 .11 3562.85 3 Factors 3 32 2215.02 461 4.81 .05 .080 .81 .83 .77 .081 .08 .09 2349.02
PAF solution 4 26 880.81 130 2.01 .03 .06 .90 .96 .83 .059 .06 .06 1016.81 CFA 2 4 26 863.50 290 2.99 .03 .052 .92 .93 .83 .059 .06 .06 985,496
19
Limitations
Several limitations may have affected the results, as well as the generalizability
of the findings of the current study. The context in which the testing took place varied
according to participant and is unknown to the researchers (Urbina, 2004). This could
have potentially led to the disruption of the participant’s concentration while the survey
was completed, or influence from others near the participant at the time of completion.
However, since participants were anonymous in both studies this potential issue is
beyond the control of the researchers, which is often the case with self-completion
questionnaires. In addition, test-retest reliability of the PPDTS was not assessed.
However, future studies will investigate the test-retest reliability of the PPDTS scale, as
this is an important validity criterion (Urbina, 2004).
Conclusion
Disaster preparedness, while forming an integral part of disaster management, is
still often unsuccessful in preventing the development of psychological symptoms in
disaster victims. In order to improve the successful preparation for natural disasters, a
more complete approach is needed, including a physical, as well as a psychological
component. This research has highlighted the important contributions that psychology
can make in the field of disaster preparedness, in theory, as well as in practice. These
will hopefully be taken onboard by organizations, as well as governments whose
preparedness measures still concentrate merely on physical preparation, or focus on
providing psychological services to those in need in the aftermath of a disaster. It is in
no way suggested that these current practices be replaced, but solely that
psychological preparedness should be added to physical preparedness measures
undertaken, in order to improve overall preparedness. This relative absence of
research in the area of psychological preparedness for disasters, as well as the lack of
20
a validated and reliable measure, makes it difficult to successfully evaluate the
effectiveness of the various existing preparedness programs. The operationalized
definition of psychological preparedness, as well as the newly developed scale can aid
in these evaluations, leading to more successful programs overall. Especially in
developing countries, where access to preparedness materials and programs are often
not readily available, it is important that the existing preparedness programs be efficient
in achieving overall preparedness. This may then support the fostering of long-term
resilience, enabling particularly residents in disaster-prone areas to better cope in the
aftermath of disasters and leading to a reduction in psychological distress.
Natural disasters may increase in severity in the next few decades, leading to
more individuals affected by the impacts of natural disasters, physically as well as
psychologically. The incorporation of psychological preparedness into disaster
management and more specifically disaster preparedness procedures can strengthen
disaster management practices overall. The operationalized definition of the construct
psychological preparedness and the newly developed and validated PPDTS scale are
thus a significant contribution to the field. Researchers in Indonesia (Syiah Kuala
University), the Philippines (University of Santo Tomas), and Japan (Miyagi Women’s
University) are currently undertaking research using the PPDTS scale, which will further
validate the PPDTS scale on geographically diverse samples.
21
References
Aiken, L. R., & Groth-Marmat, G. (2006). Psychological testing and assessment.
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Altizer, S., Ostfeld, R. S., Johnson, P. T. J., Kutz, S., & Harvell, C. D. (2013). Climate
change and infectious diseases: From evidence to a predictive framework,
Science, 341, 514–519. doi: 10.1126/science.1239401
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2008). Yearbook Complete, 2008, Australia (Catalogue
No. 1301.0). Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/1301.0
Australian Government. (2008). Natural disasters in Australia. Retrieved from
http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/natural-disasters
Blong, R. (2005). Natural hazards risk assessment - An Australian perspective. Issues
in Risk Science 4, Benfield Hazard Research Centre, London.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
Brown, M. (2002). Australia’s worst disasters. Noble Park: The Five Mile Press.
Bryant, R. (2009). The impact of natural disasters on mental health. Special report.
InPsych. The Bulletin of the Australian Psychological Society Ltd., 8-9.
Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Byrne, B. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts,
applications, and programming. New York, NY: Routledge.
Dass-Brailsford, P. (2008). After the storm: Recognition, recovery, and reconstruction.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39, 24-30.
Dass-Brailsford, P. (Ed.). (2009). Crisis and disaster counseling: Lessons learned from
Hurricane Katrina and other disasters. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22
Ebi, K. L. (2010). Human health. In S. H. Schneider, A. Rosencranz, A, M. D.
Mastrandrea, & K. Kuntz-Duriseti (Eds.), Climate change science and policy (pp.
124–130). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Elliott, R., & Timulak, L. (2005). Descriptive and interpretive approaches to qualitative
research. In J. Miles, & P. Gilbert (Eds.), A Handbook of Research Methods for
Clinical and Health Psychology. Pp. UK: Oxford press.
Fan, F., Zhang, Y., Yang, Y., Mo, L., & Liu, X. (2011). Symptoms of posttraumatic
stress disorder, depression, and anxiety among adolescents following the 2008
Wenchuan earthquake in China. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 24, 44-53.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. London: Sage.
Gibson, W. J., & Brown, A. (2009). Working with qualitative data. London: Sage.
Gifford, R. (2007). Environmental psychology. Principles and practice (4th ed.). Colville,
WA: Optimal Books.
Gregory, R. J. (2011). Psychological testing. History, principles, and applications (4th
ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education Group, Inc.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006).
Multivariate Data Analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice
Hall.
Howitt, D., & Cramer, D. (2011). Introduction to SPSS statistics in psychology: for
version 19 and earlier. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Hussain, A., Weisaeth, L., & Heir, T. (2011). Changes in religious beliefs and the
relation of religiosity to posttraumatic stress and life satisfaction after a natural
disaster. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 46, 1027-1032.
IPCC. (2012). Summary for Policymakers. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and
Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working
23
Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York,
NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Keskinen-Rosenqvist, R., Michélsen, H., Schulman, A., & Wahlström, L. (2011).
Physical symptoms 14 months after a natural disaster in individuals with or
without injury are associated with different types of exposure. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 71, 180-187.
Kessler, R. C., Galea, S., Gruber, M. J., Sampson, N. A., Ursano, R. J., & Wessely, S.
(2008). Trends in mental illness and suicidality after hurricane Katrina. Molecular
Psychiatry, 13, 374-84. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.mp.4002119
Macdougall, A.K., Ryzman, L., & Zwar, D. (2002). Thredbo. A tragedy waiting to
happen –And other Australian disasters. The Five Mile Press: Noble Park.
McCabe, O.L., Marum, F., Semon, N., Mosley, A., Gwon, H.S., Perry, C. Moore, S.S.,
Links, J.M. (2012). Participatory Public Health Systems Research: Value of
Community Involvement in a Study-Series in Mental Health Emergency
Preparedness. American Journal of Disaster Medicine, 7, 303-312.
doi:10.5055/ajdm.2012.0103
McCabe, O.L., Perry, C., Azur, M., Taylor, Gwon, M.S.. Mosley, A., Semon, N., and
Links, J.M. (2013). Guided Preparedness Planning with Lay Communities: A
Systems-Based Model for Enhancing Capacity of Rural Emergency
Response. Pre-Hospital and Disaster Medicine, 28, 1-8.
doi:10.1017/S1049023X12001483
Middlemann, M.H. (2007). Natural Hazards in Australia. Identifying Risk Analysis
Requirements. Canberra, Australia: Geoscience Australia.
Morrissey, S. A., & Reser, J. P. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of psychological
preparedness advice in community cyclone preparedness materials. The
Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 18, 46-61.
24
Neria, Y., Nandi, A., & Galea, S. (2008). Post-traumatic stress disorder following
disasters: A systematic review. Psychological Medicine, 38, 467-480.
Norris, F. (2001). 50,000 disaster victims speak: An empirical review of the empirical
literature. Washington, DC : National Center for PTSD and the Center for Mental
Health Services (SAMHSA).
Owen, W.F. (1984). Interpretive Themes in Relational Communication. The Quarterly
Journal of Speech, 70, 274-286. doi: 10.1080/00335638409383697
Palutikof, J., Parry, M., Stafford Smith, M., Ash, A.J., Boulter, S.L., & Waschka, M.
(2013). The past, the present and future of adaptation: setting the context and
naming the challenges. In J. Palutikof, M. Parry, M. Stafford Smith, A.J. Ash,
S.L. Boulter, & M. Waschka (Eds.), Climate Adaptation Futures (pp. 3-29).
Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Paton, D., Violanti, J., Dunning, C., & Smith, L. M. (2004). Managing traumatic stress
risk: A proactive approach. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Prati, G., Pietrantoni, L., & Cicognani, E. (2011). Coping strategies and collective
efficacy as mediators between stress appraisal and quality of life among rescue
workers. International Journal of Stress Management, 18, 181-195.
Reser, J.P. (1996). Coping with natural disaster warnings: The nature of human
response and psychological preparedness. In R.H. Heathcote, C. Cutter, & J.
Koetz (Eds.). United Nations Natural Disaster Reduction Conference, NDR96
Sydney: Institution of Engineers, Australia EA Books (pp. 126-136).
Reser, J.P. (2007). The experience of natural disasters: Psychological perspectives
and understandings. In Stoltman, J.P., Lindstone, J., Dechano, L.M. (Eds.),
International Perspectives on Natural Disasters: Occurrence, Mitigation, and
Consequences. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers (pp. 369-384).
25
Reser, J.P., & Morrissey, S.A. (2005, February). Situating psychology’s multiple
involvements in disaster research, mitigation and intervention: The need for a
reflective and strategic disaster response. InPsych. The Bulletin of the Australian
Psychological Society Ltd ,9-13.
Reser, J.P., & Morrissey, S.A. (2009). The crucial role of psychological preparedness
for disasters. InPsych. The Bulletin of the Australian Psychological Society Ltd.
April 2009, 14-15.
Schmuckler, E. (2004). Mental health considerations following a disaster. In D. Paton,
J.M. Violanti, C. Dunning, & L.M. Smith (Eds.), Managing traumatic stress risk
(pp. 9-25). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher, Ltd.
Schneider, S.K. (1990). Hugo and Frisco. Journal of Social Problems, 20, 97 -115.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Multivariate statistics. Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon Inc.
Urbina, S. (2004). Essentials of Psychological Testing. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Wahlström, L. (2010). Disaster and recovery. Center for Family and Community
Medicine (PhD Thesis). Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society
Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. Retrieved from:
diss.kib.ki.se/2010/978-91-7409-971-3/thesis.pdf
Woolf, M., Schneider, J., & Hazelwood, M. (2013). Extreme event risk and climate
change adaptation: improving the knowledge base and building capacity. In J.
Palutikof, M. Parry, M. Stafford Smith, A.J. Ash, S.L. Boulter, & M. Waschka
(Eds.), Climate Adaptation Futures (pp. 354-361). Chichester, West Sussex:
Wiley-Blackwell.